Our Mission

We fight tirelessly to ensure laws apply fairly and no innocent driver is punished unjustly,did you know that only Cannabis, prescription and Cocaine are what roadside drug swabs test for and more often than not its a trace of substance used days or even weeks before that don't impare or effect you. 

why is a person who is hallucinating on psychidelics, tranquilised on Ketamin ,   full of ecstacy  or even opiates not part of this legislation those substances can be long in system and cause impairment more than the current drug swabs that's true... below will explain more .

Yes. Cocaine should be included, and it actually strengthens some of the arguments while weakening others.

Under Scotland's drug-driving regime, cocaine is one of the drugs for which roadside saliva screening is used, followed by evidential blood analysis. The important distinction remains that a roadside cocaine-positive swab is only a screening result; the prosecution ultimately relies on the evidential process and the applicable blood concentration.

For cocaine, the main criticisms are:

Presence versus impairment: a cocaine-positive result does not necessarily establish that the driver was impaired at the time of driving. Section 5A focuses on the specified drug being above the prescribed blood limit rather than requiring proof of actual impairment.

Metabolism is complicated: cocaine is rapidly metabolised, producing benzoylecgonine, which can remain in the body after the acute effects of cocaine have subsided. This makes the relationship between a biological measurement and current driving impairment complicated.

The roadside swab isn't quantitative: a saliva swab can indicate cocaine is present, but it doesn't tell police that the driver is at the statutory blood limit or how impaired the driver is.

Timing matters enormously: someone who consumed cocaine some time before driving can potentially have a very different degree of impairment from someone who has just consumed it, despite both producing a positive screening result.

Polydrug use makes the picture even harder: cocaine combined with alcohol, cannabis or other substances can produce substantially different effects, while the legal system still has to translate laboratory measurements into a criminal offence.

Section 4 remains the impairment-based alternative: if the evidence demonstrates that someone was actually unfit to drive through cocaine, the traditional impairment offence can address that. The criticism of section 5A is that it can make proof of actual impairment unnecessary.

The strongest argument

I would frame the criticism this way:

The problem isn't that cocaine doesn't impair driving—it can clearly do so. The problem is whether a concentration-based offence accurately identifies drivers who were actually impaired when they drove.

That distinction is particularly important with cocaine because the drug's effects, its metabolism, and the concentrations subsequently detected in biological samples aren't identical things.

At the same time, there is a strong public-safety argument for the legislation: cocaine can seriously affect judgement, risk-taking, attention and driving behaviour, and requiring prosecutors to establish impairment in every case can be difficult.

So the better argument isn't “cocaine doesn't make driving dangerous.” It's:

“A positive biological test is evidence of drug exposure; it isn't necessarily evidence of impairment at the precise time of driving.”

If you're looking at this from the perspective of challenging the Scottish law, I can also lay out a much stronger case for why the cocaine/THC threshold system could be considered disproportionate or scientifically flawed, including the difference between cocaine, benzoylecgonine and actual impairment, and the relevant Scottish statutory provisions.